Could you ban Trump for the same reasons, from the country?

:smirk:

Justified true belief.

I would agree that (some)thought is prior to language. Not all thought is prior to language.

This is a bit irrelevant.

The question is whether or not one's language use determines ones subsequent thought(s).

The thread is about thought and belief prior to language(rudimentary thought and belief), and thus, I'm setting out that which is prior to thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief requires language. Knowledge of thought and belief requires thinking about it. Knowledge of thought and belief requires language. Not all thought and belief requires language. Some does.

All thought and belief is meaningful to the creature forming and/or 'holding' it. All thought, belief, and statements thereof presupposes it's own truth(as correspondence).

Rudimentary thought and belief presupposes correspondence to fact; reality; events; the way things are or were; etc. It is only this sense of "truth" that helps to correctly set out what thought and belief is. Correspondence to fact/reality does not require language.

Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't it be?

We're both discussing what we think and believe, respectively, right here and right now.

Knowledge is not dependent on thought... — Blue Lux

Knowledge of thought and belief is.

Re-read the first page of the thread...

Pay closer attention to the words I'm actually using.

You ask a question such as "What is Truth?"...

I answer by telling you that "truth" is a word that has several different accepted uses.

You say that doesn't matter. What else would?

We must first acknowledge that there are different uses, then we can set them out as a means to see which one, if any, are applicable to the discussion... and how.

This particular topic is about rudimentary thought and belief. Have you read the thread in it's entirety?

But it must be something specific, for it is itself something...
Are you saying it is fragmented? Then what would knowledge be then?
Knowledge would be thus nonspecific... And therefore incapable of delivering any specification at all.
Knowledge would be de trop. — Blue Lux

I'm just attempting to pave the way for a better method of understanding truth, by virtue of acknowledging that the word has several different uses.

Do you recognize that that is the case?

I am asking you. What is Truth? — Blue Lux

I answered. It's a word that has several different accepted uses. Here, you've capitalized it. Why on earth would you do that?

So truth represents nothing specific... But it does in the case of knowledge. For what could be the intentionality of a consciousness of knowledge other than the truth of what would be that knowledge? — Blue Lux

I said the word "truth" reflects nothing specific...

The word reflects a truth does it not? — Blue Lux

It does not. The word reflects - if we must talk like that - nothing specific whatsoever.

Different people use the word "truth" in different ways. All of which are accepted senses of the word. Not all of which can survive valid scrutiny. Some senses of the word take account of that which requires no language. Others do not.

As it pertains to the thread, if rudimentary thought and belief is prior to language, then soo too is everything it is existentially dependent upon. The presupposition of truth(as correspondence to fact/reality) is one such thing.

The Truth of Truth is something. What is it? — Blue Lux

"The Truth of Truth" is a language use that I find no use for.

If truth is, then what is the 'is'? — Blue Lux

What sort of question is this?

"If truth is"

???

If truth is... what exactly?

Does the word truth have a being of it's own?

Is that what you're asking me?

How you use language will not dictate how you think. How you think will dictate how you use language. — Blue Lux

I'd love to have a formal debate about this. There is a sub-forum here just for that sort of thing.

It's a word that has several different acceptable uses.

I personally use the method of understanding thought and belief, and then apply that understanding as a means to help determine whether or not some account or another warrants my assent/agreement.

I am of the strongly held position that how we use language affects/effects how we subsequently think. Poor language use results in poor thinking. Conventional notions of thought and belief lead to poor thinking.

Your use of the term "truth" is exemplary of this.

A proper understanding of thought and belief reveals much about truth.

Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs. — BrianW

Understood. We are alike in this way.

It is my well considered opinion that no discipline has gotten thought and belief right. Thus, the thrust of this thread is to correctly set out thought and belief as the first step in establishing the consequential scope that that has had.

By virtue of getting thought and belief wrong, we've gotten something or other wrong about everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written...

Is there a way to edit the name of this thread? — Banno

Edit the OP. Oops. You have already.

I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism. — BrianW

Ok.

So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it.

You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius. — BrianW

None of this follows from what I've written. I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point? — BrianW

No.

Rudimentary human thought and belief are neither invented nor created by us. That I can say emphatically.

...there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist? — BrianW

Agreed if we change "prior to their creation/invention" to "prior to their existence". That would be a rather trivial claim though.

My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately. — BrianW

There is nothing prima facie disagreeable here.

There is considerable disagreement here, but that isn't my interest. My interest is setting out human thought and belief. One means is existential dependency. I am quite hesitant to employ the notion of "instincts". It's historically a catch all phrase for autonomous behaviours and the like. It's an ad hoc explanation that fills in all the gaps of our ignorance regarding where causality meets pre-linguistic basic human behaviour(s).

Are you claiming that hard determinism is incompatible with the notion of being existentially dependent upon humans?

Through the processes of creation, invention, dependence, etc., humans are neither the first nor last in that chain of cause and effect. I understand the term 'existentially dependent upon' to imply 'owing existence to'. My point is nothing owes its existence to humans. Life is the pattern we are a part of; it determines us, we do not determine it. — BrianW

This looks like an 'argument' for strict determinism.

I'll take issue with the bit about "nothing owes it's existence to humans"...

I hope the notion of "owes" isn't the issue here. That said...

Books, type writers, computers, human thought and belief, social(human) constructs...

Are you claiming that these things are not existentially dependent upon humans?

Are you objecting, agreeing, or both? It is unclear to me.

Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon humans and others are not?

Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon our awareness and others are not?

Are you denying or agreeing that some things are existentially dependent upon both, our existence and our awareness, and others are not?

Are you denying or agreeing that we can acquire knowledge of existential dependency?

Is there some other relevancy within your post that I'm missing?

Argument A:
1. If ALL the predictions of logic are true then logic is justified
2. ALL the predictions of logic are true
So,
3. Logic is justified

Argument A is NOT circular and is a valid application of modus ponens. — TheMadFool

All the predictions of logic are true? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Predictions are neither true or false when posited.

All logical conclusions are called "true" if they result from reasoning/argument that follows the rules of correct inference. Logic is the rules of correct inference. Calling something "true" doesn't make it so, even when we're calling the conclusion of a valid argument "true". Validity does not equate to truth. Logical truths are a misnomer.

Logic doesn't find truth.

Logic presupposes truth. It's utility is to preserve it. The rules of correct inference are justified - if we must talk like that - solely by virtue of how well they work.

True conclusions do not logically follow from false premisses. False conclusions do not logically follow from true premisses.

Our considerations increase in interesting ways when setting out what the attribution/recognition of causality and meaning consists in/of. Whatever it takes, rudimentary thought and belief includes it. Rudimentary thought and belief are prior to language acquisition. Whatever rudimentary thought and belief consist of, it is something that exists prior to language, but it also included in thought and belief during and after language acquisition.

The creature is drawing correlations between different 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and itself, That is more than adequate for attributing meaning and causality. All correlation presupposes the exist of it's own content(regardless of subsequent qualifications). That's the presupposition of correspondence inherent to all thought and belief, including but not limited to statements thereof.

All thought and belief consists of the attribution/recognition of causality/meaning. We say this because all known examples do. There are no exceptions. If we are to remain sensible, any future discovery of thought and belief would be a novel candidate that includes the attribution/recognition of causality/meaning.

This all happened prior to language. It had to have. Otherwise, there could be no rudimentary(pre-linguistic) thought and belief to be taken account of later. But we clearly think about our own thought and belief. It clearly existed prior to our taking account of it. We had best get it right.

Re-read it, and have some simple questions if you will: — Posty McPostface

Notta problem Posty.

Call them what you wish, as long as they meet the criterion I'm setting out.

What do you mean by that? — Posty McPostface

I'm setting out a criterion which - when met - counts as being thought and belief. I am claiming that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon physiological sensory perception, pre-existing spatiotemporal distinction and the attribution/recognition of meaning and/or causality.

Games are inventions of humans. Thought and belief are not. The only commonality relevant here is that they are both existentially dependent upon humans. The remarkable difference is that games are created/invented by us, whereas human thought and belief is discovered. Games are existentially dependent upon both, our awareness of them and our existence, whereas rudimentary thought and belief is only existentially dependent upon our existence. — creativesoul

I don't see how they are at the same time existentially dependent upon our existence and at the same time independent of being discovered.

We form thought and belief prior to being able to talk about thought and belief. Thought and belief are mental ongoings. We discover things that existed - in their entirety - prior to our discovery. Our awareness of our own mental ongoings requires language. That is how it's able to be discovered and independent of discovery prior to it.

Human thought and belief could not have ever existed if humans had not. That's how it is existentially dependent upon us.

May be best to have a better re-read later...

Have I left any objection uncovered?

If I'm missing a valid objection, by all means, please let me know. I do not like doing that.

But thought and belief are just given, one cannot doubt that one is doubting. — Posty McPostface

How are these two claims applicable here? The first is a bald assertion. I've already argued for the negative of that claim. I've no reason to believe a bald assertion over the argument I've provided. The second is irrelevant to what's been written thus far.

One need not doubt that one is doubting in order for anything I've said here to be true.

If it is it is by pure accident. I've not thought in such terms here.

I'm working from an unspoken premise. At conception, there is no thought and belief. Belief must begin. There is no reason to suppose that complex thought and belief can be formed by a creature prior to more simple, given what we know about our own knowledge base. Therefore, thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.
— creativesoul

But this is confusing. Belief and thought cannot be talked about before their existence. It would be as if one we're to talk about thinking without ever having a thought to begin with. Simply futile? — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what's confusing. Nothing I've said is incommensurate with the objection. That tells me that perhaps there's a misunderstanding at work here.

Talking about thinking requires complex written language. Thinking does not. One cannot talk about thinking without ever having had a thought to begin with. That is in agreement with all this.

We talk about things we discover all the time. All of these things existed prior to discovery. Rudimentary thought and belief are no different.

Talking about one's own thought and belief comes after having it.

I'm uncertain about what kinds of things are those which are so rudimentary even need discovering. They just are given. — Posty McPostface

Rudimentary as in - is not existentially dependent upon our awareness that they exist.

Nothing at the baseline of all thought and belief is a given, on my view. Unless by "given" you mean something like pre-dating human existence.

I'm working from an unspoken premise. At conception, there is no thought and belief. Belief must begin. There is no reason to suppose that complex thought and belief can be formed by a creature prior to more simple, given what we know about our own knowledge base. Therefore, thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.

Does that help orient you?

It doesn't follow from the fact that some sounds find no ear that we cannot talk about such things.

It's no bother Posty...

:smile:

...if a tree falls down and no sensory apparatuses are around to percieve it falling, then nothing can be said about the tree. — Posty McPostface

And yet... you just did.

Some things are not created/invented by us, but are - most certainly - existentially dependent upon us. However, these things are also discovered by us. They also exist, in their entirety prior to our discovery of them. Rudimentary level human thought, belief, emotion, wants, and needs are all fine examples of these sorts of things. These are the sorts of things I'm interested in.
— creativesoul

Can you expand on this? — Posty McPostface

What part would you like to see elaborated upon? The rest of the thread has been slowly and steadily elaborating upon exactly those things...

I'm unsure where you are with regards to understanding.

So, I read it all; but, no question was posited. I can't but help as though the grand conclusion is that whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent? — Posty McPostface

Witt poses no problem for that which has no precisely measurable spatiotemporal location. Nor is there any reason to believe that we cannot know about such things.

I've been actively editing it Posty. If you're interested, I'd be more than happy to discuss this in as much or little depth as you like. This is pretty much a summary of a decade worth of my own critical thinking. It's basically about thought and belief. That said, I'm not clear if I'm happy with it yet.

How does that particular Witt phrase apply?